Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
Aggressive Responses to Interpersonal Rejection
XXXXX XXXXXXXXX
University of Northern Iowa
1
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
2
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejection-aggression
link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44, 775-782. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5
Blackhart, G., Eckel, L., & Tice, D. (2007). Salivary cortisol in response to acute social rejection
and acceptance by peers. Biological Psychology, 75, 267-276.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.03.005
Buckley, K., Winkel, R., & Leary, M. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of
level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
40, 14-28. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7
Eisenberger, N., Lieberman, M., & Williams, K. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An f-MRI study of
social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292. doi:10.1126/science.1089134
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., & O'Mara, E. (2008). When rejection by one fosters aggression against
many: Multiple-victim aggression as a consequence of social rejection and perceived
groupness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 958-970.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.004
Leary, M. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression,
and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229. Retrieved
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
3
from PsycINFO database
Leary, M., Kowalski, R., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case
studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202-214. doi:10.1002/ab.10061
Leary, M., Twenge, J., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger
and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-132.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between
social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223. doi:10.1037/00332909.131.2.202
Mallott, M., Maner, J., DeWall, N., & Schmidt, N. (2009). Compensatory deficits following
rejection: The role of social anxiety in disrupting affiliative behavior. Depression and
Anxiety, 26, 438-446. doi:10.1002/da.20555
Nezlek, J., Kowalski, R., Leary, M., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. (1997). Personality moderators of
reactions to interpersonal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235-1244. doi:10.1177/01461672972312001
Stillman, T., Baumeister, R., Lamber, N., Crescioni, A., DeWall, C., & Fincham, F. (2009).
Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of
Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 686-694. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007
Twenge, J., Baumeister, R., DeWall, C., Ciarocco, N., & Bartels, J. (2007). Social exclusion
decreases pro-social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56-66.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
Twenge, J., Baumeister, R., Tice, D., & Stucke, T. (2001). If you can't join them, beat them:
Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
4
Psychology, 81, 1058-1069. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
This article provided an in-depth examination of the relationship between social rejection
and aggressive behavior, with the general hypothesis that social rejection and exclusion lead to
an increase in aggressive behavior. In five related experiments, researchers manipulated
participants' perception of acceptance and rejection and measured the resulting levels of
aggression. Researchers also investigated the hypothesis that mood serves as a mediator in the
relationship between rejection and aggression.
In the first experiment, the researchers predicted that perception of social exclusion leads
to aggressive behavior. The participants were 47 undergraduate college students participating in
the study as a course requirement, and were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: futurealone, future-belonging, misfortune-control, positive-control, and negative-control. First, the
participants were split into same-sex groups of two, and each participant completed a personality
questionnaire and composed an essay expressing their opinion on abortion. Next, participants
each evaluated what they assumed to be another participant's essay. (This essay was actually
written by the experimenter, and always reflected the opinion opposite that of each individual
participant).
To manipulate perception of rejection or acceptance, participants in three of the
conditions were provided with feedback on the already-completed personality questionnaires.
All feedback was fabricated by the experimenter. In the future-alone condition, participants
were told that they were "the type who would end up alone in life". Participants in the futurebelonging condition were informed that they were "the type who has rewarding relationships
throughout life". Finally, participants in the misfortune-control condition were told that they
were "the type that would be accident prone later in life". The positive-control and negative-
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
5
control conditions received no feedback regarding their futures.
Next, each participant in the future-alone, future-belonging, misfortune-control, and
negative-control conditions received derogatory, negative feedback on the previously-written
essay. Participants in the positive-control condition received complimentary, positive feedback.
All feedback was assumed to be from the other member in the original two-person group, but
was actually written by the experimenter. Finally, to measure aggression, participants in each
condition were told that the person who evaluated their essay was applying for a research job.
Each participant was given the task of evaluating the applicant on ten job-related items, with a
possible total score of 10 – 100.
The results indicated that the perception of social exclusion leads to a significant increase
in aggressive behavior: participants in the future-alone condition gave the applicant a very poor
evaluation (average of 26 points). Participants in the future-belonging, misfortune-control, and
negative-control conditions gave applicants a moderate evaluation (average of 55 points), and
participants in the positive control condition gave applicants very positive evaluations (average
of 78 points). These findings support the initial hypothesis, which stated that perceptions of
social rejection lead to increased exhibitions of aggression. Specifically, participants given a
forecast for a lonely future displayed markedly increased levels of aggression in the form of poor
job evaluations. These results imply that social rejection can potentially produce aggressive
reactions, especially when present in combination with a negative event.
The second experiment was a methodological duplication of the first experiment, except
that only the future-alone and negative-control conditions were present. The researchers
hypothesized that participants that were told they would be alone later in life would display
greater levels of aggression than would participants who were given no future forecast. The
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
6
participants were 16 undergraduate students participating in the study to fulfill a course
requirement. The experimental design was identical to the first experiment's design of the
future-alone and negative-control conditions: those in the future-alone condition were told they
could expect a lonely future, and those in the negative-control group heard no prediction. All
participants received a negative evaluation of their essay, and each participant engaged in the
task of evaluating a potential job applicant.
The findings revealed that participants in the future-alone condition exhibited
significantly higher levels of aggression than participants in the negative-control condition: those
in the future-alone conditions gave applicants an average rating of 28, while those in the
negative-control condition gave an average rating of 45. The ratings given by those in the
negative-control group were moderate, showing that receiving criticism does not, on its own,
elicit aggressive reactions. Thus, aggression was shown to be a response specific to rejection,
and supported the researchers’ initial hypothesis.
The first and second experiments clearly supported the hypothesis that rejection leads to
increased aggression in the presence of a negative provocation. In the third experiment,
researchers investigated whether or not rejection would lead to aggressive behavior in the
presence of mostly positive evaluations. The participants were 38 undergraduate students who
were participating in the study to fulfill a course requirement. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions: future-alone positive-evaluation, future-belonging positiveevaluation, misfortune positive-evaluation, and future-alone negative-evaluation. All
participants completed a personality questionnaire, composed an essay revealing their opinion on
abortion, and evaluated an essay (opposite their own opinion) that was assumed to be written by
another participant. (These essays were actually written by the experimenter). All participants
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
7
then completed a mood questionnaire.
In the future-alone positive-evaluation, future-belonging positive-evaluation, and
misfortune positive-evaluation conditions, participants were given future forecasts identical to
the comparable conditions in the first experiment. This time, however, participants in these
conditions received positive, complimentary essay evaluations. Participants in the future-alone
negative-evaluation condition were given the same future forecast as the future-alone condition
in the first experiment, and received negative, derogatory essay evaluations. To measure
aggression, participants were again given the task of evaluating job applicants.
The results of this experiment indicated that the participants in the future-alone negativeevaluation condition displayed much higher levels of aggression than did any other condition.
Participants in the future-alone positive-evaluation condition gave job applicants relatively high
ratings. This finding has important implications: positive events, such as receiving praise, may
reduce the effects of social rejection on aggressive behavior. The results of the mood
questionnaire did not differ significantly among groups, indicating that mood level does not
serve as a mediator between rejection and aggression.
In the fourth experiment, researchers hypothesized that social rejection would lead to
increased aggressive behavior toward a person who had insulted the participant, but who had not
directly rejected them. The participants were 30 undergraduate students participating in the
study to fulfill a course requirement, and were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
accepted or rejected. First, participants arrived at the laboratory in same-gender groups of four
to six people, and were given instructions to learn each other's names and get acquainted with
one another for fifteen minutes. Next, participants were taken to rooms individually and told to
write down group members they would most like to work with, and composed an essay revealing
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
8
their stance on abortion. The experimenter told participants she would return with their group
assignments. Those in the accepted condition were told "...everyone chose you as someone
they'd like to work with". Those in the rejected condition were told "no one chose you as
someone they'd like to work with".
Participants were then told that they would play a computer reaction game with a person
they had not previously met, and completed a mood questionnaire. Participants received their
previously written essay, all with negative feedback, and were told that the person who had
evaluated their essay was the person they would be playing against in the computer game. (In
actuality, participants were not playing against a person, but were playing against a computer).
The participants were then provided with directions for the computer game: they were told they
must hit a button as quickly as possible, and the person who failed to hit it first would be blasted
with a loud, unpleasant noise. To measure aggression, each participant was allowed to set the
intensity and duration of the noise for the "other person".
The findings indicated that rejected participants chose a much higher intensity and
duration of noise than did accepted participants. These results support the researchers' initial
hypothesis. The findings also imply that aggression can be directed toward someone who merely
insults the rejected individual, but has no involvement in their rejection. Again, the results of the
mood questionnaire exhibited no significant differences between rejected and accepted
participants, suggesting that mood does not mediate the relationship between rejection and
aggression.
The first four experiments consistently indicate that rejection leads to aggressive behavior
toward someone who insults the rejected participant. In the fifth experiment, researchers
explored whether or not exclusion would lead to aggression toward neutral parties. Participants
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
9
were 34 undergraduate students participating in the study to fulfill course requirements, and were
randomly assigned to either the rejected or accepted condition. Participants arrived in groups of
four to six people, and were told to learn each other's names and get acquainted for fifteen
minutes. They were then split up individually, and asked to name the two others they would
most like to work with. Participants then composed an essay revealing their stance on abortion,
and were provided with no evaluation or feedback on this essay. Aggression was measured as
the intensity and duration the participant chose for the blasts of sound.
The results indicated that rejected participants were much more aggressive (chose longer
duration and higher intensity noise blasts) than accepted participants, who chose relatively short
duration and low intensity noise blasts. The target of the rejected participants' aggression had
neither praised or criticized them in any way, nor was involved in their rejection. These findings
suggest that neutral parties are not exempt from the aggressive behavior of rejected individuals.
The researchers began with the hypothesis that perceptions of social rejection lead to an
increase in aggressive behavior. As previously shown, all of the experiments supported this
general prediction, and clearly indicated that aggression is a response specific to rejection.
Specifically, researchers found that participants who had been rejected reacted aggressively
toward parties who had insulted or criticized them, but had not been involved with their
rejection. Furthermore, rejected individuals displayed aggression toward entirely neutral parties.
These findings have severe implications in that rejected individuals may retaliate aggressively
toward anyone. Researchers also discovered that rejected individuals did not display aggression,
but were neutral, toward people who had praised or complimented them, implying that even a
small act of kindness can buffer aggressive responses to rejection. Finally, researchers
hypothesized that mood level would serve as a mediator in the relationship between rejection and
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
10
aggression. This hypothesis was not supported, indicating that emotional distress cannot explain
the relationship between rejection and aggression.
Twenge, J., & Campbell, W. (2003). 'Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?'
Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29, 261-272. doi:10.1177/0146167202239051
Twenge, J., Zhang, L., Catanese, K., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Lyche, L., & Baumeister, R. (2007).
Replenishing connectedness: Reminders of social activity reduce aggression after social
exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 205-224.
doi:10.1348/014466605X90793
Warburton, W., Williams, K., & Cairns, D. (2004). When ostracism leads to aggression: The
moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental and Social
Psychology, 42, 213-220. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.005
This article examined whether a person’s perceived level of control would serve as a
moderator in the already-established relationship between social ostracism and aggression.
Specifically, the authors proposed that individuals who underwent a reduced level of control
after being ostracized would exhibit increased levels of aggression, whereas individuals who
underwent an increased level of control after being ostracized would exhibit decreased levels of
aggression. The authors also proposed that these effects would not be attributable to decreased
mood or increased levels of arousal.
Forty undergraduate psychology students volunteered for this study, and were randomly
assigned to one of the following groups: inclusion-restored control, inclusion-diminished control,
ostracism-restored control, and ostracism-diminished control. To prevent biased results, the
participants were told that they were participating in a taste preferences experiment. First, each
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
11
person was placed in a group with two other supposed participants, who were actually
confederates of the experiment, and completed a mood and arousal questionnaire. The
experimenter then left the room, and one confederate instigated a casual game of catch by tossing
a toy amongst the three people. In each of the ostracism conditions, participants were quickly
ignored and excluded from the game. In each of the inclusion conditions, the participants were
included in the game equally with the two confederates. Next, to manipulate level of control,
each participant was required to listen to a multitude of loud, unpleasant sounds through
headphones. In the diminished control condition, the participants had no control over the timing
and duration of the sounds, while those in the restored control condition had complete control
over the timing and duration of the sounds through the use of a remote control. After this step of
the experiment, all participants were again administered the mood and arousal questionnaire.
To measure aggression, participants were split up individually and given a sizeable
sample of hot sauce. They were told that, in preparation for the next part of the experiment, their
task was to apportion a new sample of hot sauce from the larger sample for later consumption by
another participant. Participants were informed that they were allowed to make this new sample
as large or as small as they preferred. To make this task "aggressive", participants were also told
that the recipient strongly disliked hot and spicy foods, that the recipient would have to consume
the sample in its entirety, and finally, that the sauce was extremely hot. Aggression was
measured as the amount of hot sauce each participant apportioned into the new sample.
Each of the ostracized groups displayed more aggression (distributed more hot sauce)
than the included groups, and each of the diminished control groups displayed more aggression
than the restored control groups. In support of the initial hypothesis, participants in the
ostracism-diminished control condition distributed an average of four times more hot sauce than
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
12
did any other group. Also supporting the hypothesis, the results of the mood and arousal
questionnaires did not differ significantly among groups, indicating that any results of the
experiment were not attributable to decreased mood level or increased levels of arousal.
The results indicate that, as originally proposed, perceived level of control does moderate
the relationship between ostracism and aggression: a high level of perceived control after
ostracism decreases the probability of aggression, while a low level of perceived control after
ostracism increases the probability of aggression. These results have important applications in
helping ostracized individuals: by providing opportunities for them to experience a sense of
control, it may be possible to decrease the likelihood of aggressive, and potentially harmful,
behavioral responses.
Williams, K., Cheung, C., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the
Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762. doi:10.1037/00223514.79.5.748
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
13
Literature Review
The need to belong has been shown to be a primary, potent, and extremely pervasive
human motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). From an evolutionary perspective, the need to
belong forms its roots in the idea that increased amounts of social interaction result in increased
chances of reproductive success (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This view suggests that social
bonds constitute a crucial aspect in the survival of mankind, growing in strength and expanding
in function over time. Thus, it should not be surprising that the consequences of leaving the need
for belongingness unfulfilled are great.
The disintegration of social bonds is associated with a number of negative emotions, such
as depression, anxiety, and subjective feelings of loneliness (Leary, 1990). The act of social
exclusion, also referred to as rejection and/or ostracism, has been shown to have such powerful
effects as reducing one's sense of purpose, efficacy, value, and self-worth (Stillman, Baumeister,
Lamber, Crescioni, DeWall, & Fincham, 2009). Williams, Cheung, and Choi (2000) conducted
an experiment over the internet that manipulated participants’ perception of ostracism.
Participants ostracized from a virtual ball-toss game reported decreased feelings of
belongingness, lowered self-esteem, and general aversive impact. The existence of these effects
in an artificial, impersonal environment such as the internet is a testament to the importance of
social inclusion (Williams et al., 2000). Though one may expect that rejection would lead to
attempts to restore social bonds, a number of studies have shown that the opposite occurs. Social
rejection has been shown to reduce pro-social behaviors, such as cooperating with and helping
others (Twenge, Baumeister, Dewall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007), and a number of studies have
demonstrated that social rejection leads to aggressive behavior (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan,
2006; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001).
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
14
Biological evidence for the link between rejection and aggression was provided in a study
by Blackhart, Eckel, and Tice (2007). The researchers manipulated acceptance and rejection by
telling participants that they had been named by several others as a desirable partner, or had not
been named by anyone as a desirable partner. Controlling for other contributing factors, the
researchers then measured participants' level of salivary cortisol. Cortisol is referred to as the
"stress hormone", and functions to raise blood pressure and heart rate in response to external
threats. The results of this experiment showed that rejected participants displayed much higher
levels of salivary cortisol, indicating that social rejection produces psychological, and perhaps
physical, distress. These results also imply that the human body perceives social rejection as an
external threat to survival.
Consistent with the evidence on salivary cortisol, Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams
(2003) found that both social pain and physical pain activate the same brain region. Thus, the
researchers have concluded that reactions to social exclusion are monitored in the same way as
reactions to physical pain. Additionally, MacDonald and Leary (2005) found several similar
correlational trends between social and physical pain. Both types of pain are similarly related to
perception of social support, and similar emotions can be observed among the sufferers of each
type of pain. Physical pain is perceived as an external hindrance to survival, requiring an
organism to act immediately in ways that will eliminate that threat. MacDonald and Leary
(2005) posited that the prospect of social exclusion has been ingrained as an evolutionary threat
to survival, prompting humans to reflexively respond in protective, and sometimes aggressive,
ways.
Whatever the underlying mechanism, a large amount of research supports the notion that
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
15
social rejection leads to aggression. Generally, research examining this link must first
manipulate participants' perceptions of rejection and acceptance. In a study conducted by
Twenge et al. (2001), perceptions of social rejection and acceptance were manipulated by using a
common method in rejection-aggression research: participants were either told that they would
end up alone later in life, that they would have a life full of rich social interaction, or that they
would be accident prone in the future (control group). The participants were then given the
opportunity to display aggression through performing a job candidate evaluation in one segment
of the study, or through administering loud, unpleasant noise bursts to other participants in
another segment. The results indicated that rejected individuals were much more likely to
behave aggressively, administering much more negative job candidate evaluations and blasting
targets with much higher levels of noise than did the accepted participants. The control group
failed to display aggressive responses unless excluded from group membership, indicating that
aggression is a response specific to rejection. This aggressive reaction also occurred when the
target of aggression was uninvolved in the participants' rejection.
Another common way in which researchers manipulate the perception of rejection and
acceptance is through either excluding or including participants in an impromptu game. In a
study by Warburton, Williams, and Cairns (2004), some participants were deliberately excluded
from an impromptu game of catch with two other participants, who were confederates of the
experiment. The researchers predicted that a rejected individual's perceived level of control
would moderate the aggressiveness of his or her response to social exclusion. After the
rejection/acceptance manipulation, participants were made to listen to a series of unpleasant
noises, and were either given complete control or no control over the timing and duration of
these sounds. Aggression was then measured as the amount of hot sauce a person chose to
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
16
apportion from a larger sample for later consumption by another participant. The researchers
found that the participants who had been rejected and deprived of control allocated almost four
times as much hot sauce than did any of the other participants. This result was also present when
the recipient of the hot sauce was uninvolved with the participants’ rejection. These findings
indicate that perceived level of control serves as an important moderator in the relationship
between rejection and aggression.
As evident in the research conducted by Twenge et al. (2001) and Warburton et al.
(2004), rejected individuals may generalize their aggressive responses to individuals personally
unaffiliated with the initial rejection. Gaertner, Iuzzini, and O’Mara (2008) conducted further
research attempting to explain this phenomenon. It was hypothesized that a rejected individual
will associate the rejecter with his or her group of friends, (if this group is present during the
rejection experience), and will respond aggressively toward the entire group. The results of the
experiment supported the hypothesis: a rejected individual who perceived groupness among a
rejecter and two other neutral individuals behaved aggressively and reported negative attitudes
toward the entire triad. Rejected individuals who did not perceive groupness among the three
people did not display these same aggressive inclinations. These results imply that aggression is
generalized toward other people only if they are presumed to be personally associated with the
rejecter.
It seems, however, that innocent parties have often been the target of aggressive
responses to social exclusion. A relevant application of the connection between rejection and
aggression is evident in the recent surge of school shootings, such as the Columbine shooting in
Littleton, Colorado in 1999. Leary, Kowalski, Smith, and Phillips (2003) investigated the media
claim that extreme instances of school violence were instigated by social rejection. The
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
17
researchers conducted a case study of fifteen school shootings occurring between 1995 and 2001,
interviewing teachers, family members, and classmates of the perpetrators. The results indicated
that some sort of social exclusion, whether in the form of teasing, ostracism, or romantic
rejection, was involved in all but two of the fifteen cases. The researchers acknowledged that the
vast majority of adolescents experience at least some form of social rejection, but do not act in
such extreme, aggressive ways as the perpetrators in the studied school shootings. Thus, Leary
et al. (2003) proposed that aggression occurs as a response to social rejection only when present
in combination with a number of risk factors, including psychological issues such as depression.
Much of the research on the link between rejection and aggression focuses on personality
factors that may moderate the relationship. One personality factor that is frequently examined is
that of narcissism, a trait that has been observed in several perpetrators of school shootings and
other acts of violence (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Twenge
and Campbell (2003) describe narcissism as “a complex trait that includes inflated views of self,
intrapsychic and interpersonal strategies for maintaining these inflated self-views, and poor
relational functioning” (p. 262). These researchers conducted a study comparing narcissists’ and
non-narcissists’ reactions to social rejection in terms of anger and aggression. The results
indicated that a narcissistic personality is predictive of increased levels and likelihood of
aggressive responding, even toward individuals uninvolved with the initial rejection (Twenge &
Campbell, 2003). Similarly, Baumeister et al. (1996) posited that aggression is most commonly a
result of threatened egotism in very high self-esteem individuals. In this view, social rejection
constitutes a threat that undermines inflated self-appraisals, leading high self-esteem individuals
to take action to eliminate that threat. Often, this action is in the form of violence.
Research has also been conducted on another possible dispositional moderator in the
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
18
relationship between rejection and aggression: rejection sensitivity (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen,
2008; Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004). Ayduk et al. (2008) define rejection sensitivity as “a
processing disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection” (p.775).
Participants in the study conducted by Ayduk et al. (2008) were given a reliable Rejection
Sensitivity questionnaire, and were then either rejected or accepted by potential partners.
Aggression was measured as the amount of hot sauce a person chose to allocate to the potential
partner. A high score on the Rejection Sensitivity questionnaire was shown to be predictive of
greater exhibition of aggressive behavior, while participants who scored low on Rejection
Sensitivity did not respond to rejection with aggression. Similarly, Buckley et al. (2004)
discovered high scores on Rejection Sensitivity were predictive of stronger, more negative
reactions to interpersonal rejection; high scores on the trait of agreeableness were predictive of
positive or neutral reactions to rejection.
It has also been suggested that depression may increase the risk of aggressive responses
to social rejection (Leary et al., 2003). In two experiments, Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins,
and Holgate (1997) investigated whether depression and self-esteem affected the perception of
and reaction to interpersonal rejection. In the first experiment, equal numbers of depressed and
non-depressed participants were told that they were either included or excluded from a
laboratory group. The participants were told that this group membership was either randomly
decided or was decided based on the wishes of the other group members. The results of the
study indicated that depressed individuals were more sensitive to acceptance and rejection: they
reacted negatively to exclusion only when it was allegedly based on the preferences of others.
Non-depressed individuals’ feelings were the same whether their group inclusion/exclusion was
random or based on the wishes of other group members.
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
19
In the second experiment conducted by Nezlek et al. (1997), the researchers examined
self-esteem's effect on the perception of and reaction to interpersonal rejection. Participants were
classified as either having high self-esteem or low self-esteem, and were told that they were
included or excluded from a laboratory group either randomly or based on the wishes of the other
group members. The results indicated that, when provided with the same information, low selfesteem individuals perceived more rejection and lower levels of acceptance than high self-esteem
individuals. Also, in individuals with low self-esteem, rejection and acceptance were shown to
significantly affect self-ratings. Individuals with high self-esteem remained unaffected in their
self-ratings, regardless of whether they were accepted or rejected. While this study does not
extensively discuss the applications to aggressive behavior, it does imply that both depression
and low self-esteem are predictors of greater sensitivity and stronger reactions to interpersonal
rejection. More research is needed to link these individual differences to aggressive responses to
exclusion.
As previously mentioned, Twenge et al. (2007) found that social rejection reduces prosocial behaviors, such as cooperating with or helping another person. Expanding on this idea,
Mallott, Maner, DeWall, and Schmidt (2009) conducted research examining whether social
anxiety, another dispositional factor, moderates the relationship between social rejection and prosocial behaviors. Participants were evaluated and placed into two groups: those who displayed
symptoms of social anxiety and those who did not. Within each group, half of the members
experienced rejection, while the other half experienced no rejection. The results revealed that
individuals who were not socially anxious responded to rejection by actively seeking out positive
social interaction. Conversely, socially anxious individuals did not respond actively, positively,
or pro-socially to rejection. More research is needed to link social anxiety to aggressive
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
20
responses to rejection, but the results of this study clearly indicate that socially anxious
individuals interpret and respond to rejection differently.
As demonstrated, a large amount of research has indicated a link between social rejection
and aggression, and many studies have investigated factors influencing the relationship. Less is
known, however, about ways in which aggressive responses to rejection can be diminished or
eliminated. Research conducted by Twenge, Zhang, Catanese, Dolan-Pascoe, Lyche, and
Baumeister (2007) addresses possible solutions to aggressive behavioral responses to exclusion.
Through four experiments, researchers demonstrated that providing reminders of social activity
and connectedness can significantly decrease aggressive responses to rejection. These reminders
of social activity and connectedness included reminders in the form of writing about a family
member or friend, and engaging in a short, pleasant discussion with the experimenter. Also, the
results of the previously mentioned study by Warburton et al. (2004) imply that increasing a
rejected individual’s perceived level of control could prevent aggressive behavior. The studies
conducted by Twenge et al. (2007) and Warburton et al. (2004) imply that reducing aggressive
reactions to rejection is possible. More research, however, is needed on ways in which this
might be accomplished.
Humans have an innate need to belong, and the failure to satisfy this need results in a
number of undesirable and unpleasant consequences (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The acts of
rejection, exclusion, and ostracism result in negative personal outcomes for the rejected
individual (Leary, 1990), often leading to aggressive patterns of responding (Twenge et al.,
2001; Warburton et al., 2004). The majority of the research on this subject focuses on
personality and situational factors that moderate the relationship between rejection and
aggression. While this information is valuable, the focus of research should be shifted to ways in
Running head: AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES TO INTERPERSONAL REJECTION
which to modify individuals’ responses to rejection. Further research targeting behavioral
intervention of aggressive responses to rejection could have massive implications in reducing
worldwide violence, thus creating a safer and more enriching environment in which to live.
21